A Resource for Performing Artists, Scholars and Audiences.
Performa has just ended in New York and there is a review of the festival on the NY Times. The writer keeps mentioning "visual art performance" and Performa also uses this term to describe the works in the festival. Are other institutions using this phrase to describe performance art, contemporary performance, and just plane performance? What is your definition?
I assume when I see the term 'visual art performance' that it falls under the performance art umbrella and comes from an artist that, for the most part, uses a fine arts medium through a live staging.
For me this is the best and more accurate term for performances coming from the field of visual art. I do use the term. I do see visual art theater is something slightly else. This is one is exists within the frameworks of theater (and its network) yet made through a visual art perspective when comes to the listening of the materials and its dramaturgy. Even the so called post-dramatic theater I see it as much more connected to a text even when this apparently absent.
OK, the best and most accurate would be enough, but in my opinion it is not a question about a visit card but a real sense and meaning of the term. So, then my question is about the name for the performances coming from the field of music, and from poetry... Do you have any name for that?
And - when we say "performance coming from the field of visual art", do we mean authors educated as visual artists? Or visual forms only? Or more visual than others? Maybe not blind? Maybe a kind of language, strategies? Something ordinary or more subtle?
OR - which is maybe closer to the matter of fact - the reason lies in this, that people teaching performance art are often not performance artists but painters, dancers, story-tellers?
Grace Exhibition Space is also using the term Contemporary Visual Performance. it puts a focus on the visual aspect of performance art, which comes out of the visual arts, and the importance of the visual - how the performance is viewed and read from an art theory perspective - is very important to performance artists. It also updates the term Performance Art and puts into our times.
My Valentine to Performance Art, Contemporary Visual Performance, Live Art . . .
on V's Day : )
I feel like I am dealing with a version of this question constantly lately and dealt with it in different ways in a recent book called Social Works. I think that visual art performance is performance that measures its distance from the heretofore static visual art object, an expansion into spatial, durational, embodied dimensions that visual art historians called the "dematerialized" but which of course does not feel like dematerialization to anyone who began in the material world of performance. Visual art performance also places quotation marks around its material and actions, ostensibly in a way that is more conceptual and rigorous than "theatre" frames its materials and actions. However, when so-called visual art performance starts using characters, scripts, comedy, narrative, and clowning, the illusion of this separate category becomes harder to maintain.
I found and enjoyed this link on the subject:
The ways of creating and ways of accepted viewing and funding and marketing are what differs.
I find myself very conflicted, feeling that while much theater has failed, that many visual art performances have also failed, and there needs to be more knowledge across disciplines to move forward. Both are repeating many past experiments and claiming to be better than the other, in fact not letting the public decide.
I've been leaning toward the 'Moving Arts' myself.